• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

A woman and child; truth via absence of evidence

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
I would call for medical personnel and police so they could do what is needed to do.
Then I would while wait for ambulance and police try to gain an answer to if the woman is a danger to me, is she is not I would run in to help the kid (if he still alive) if the kid is not alive but the woman is not harmed, even she has blood on her i would wait for the ambulance and police

It doesn't say what you will do, though. Also, without investigation.

How did you logically come to that conclusion without seeing the facts?

I know humans have a sense of emergency, but beyond that quick justification, what do you think?
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Why would you assume anything? No evidence is no evidence. It doesn't logically lead one to any conclusions.

THANK YOU.

Many people would assume a murder took place even though they haven't seen it. Likewise, many people may assume pretty much anything without the facts. Decision (belief, so have you) based on absence of evidence. However, beyond that, there is an idea that "evidence" doesn't need to be what is seen but what is unseen-the gap.

If I were to connect it with god, that's like with belief in god (and probably a stretch beyond the christian god) to where you have experiences and feelings and then you have the result (like synchronization and interpretation thereof) without actual facts that the two are hooked together regardless one's beliefs, predispositions, and opinions that it should be so. There's could be strong evidence of the observation/feelings interprets synchronicity to lead to a factual experiences, but can one trust their observation and experiences that those facts are actually true (that the woman actually hurt the child)?
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
I see it not within your expertise to conclude one way or another. One has to know how to read the evidence.

Since there is no investigation involved in the scenario, it's only what brought you to that conclusion without justifying it with human-instinctual decision.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
I'm not heavy into sarcasm. I have language issues but I try to get around them with proper discussion and huge clarification. So, if that's what you need, please ask directly. Post #22 has the point. Some of you got it, others did not. So, it depends on the person and what he or she interprets it.

Probably because it is sarcasm given the OP wants specifics without offering up any details that even a child would notice, not to mention someone with any training or experience....

It's not specific to that whether the child is in danger and what would you do. It says what brought you to the conclusion If you thought the child was in danger based on what you saw but never witnessed.

It's "what is your logic" question not what you would do. Most people would call the police, defend the child, whatever the case may be. No investigation needed. Of course, that's the ideal decision but this isn't a decision based question but a thought based: what brought you to that conclusion.

Other posts give or take got it, so you can look through those too.

Yes.
I can not answer for myself because I am not a believer.
I can not answer for any one else because I suspect that each person has their own thought process which is saturated with bias, prejudice, etc. based upon each individuals experiences.

Have you hypothesized in someone else's shoes before?

Most likely. I hypothsize a lot so asking questions from another point of view is pretty much part of how I see life. If I personally only interpret things from my perspective, well....

I most likely would if I had any idea what your point might be.

Ask. Communication comes with clarification. Unless it's a math problem, I'm sure not all OPs are point blank. If they were, religiousforums, would probably not exist.

You are going to have to be more specific.

I don't know now. The whole time it wasn't conversation but more attacking the question and sarcasm around it. If I was more specific, would you drop the sarcasm?

Can't use instinct, reflex, training, etc. as "justification" for actions that would be, at least at first, training, reflex, instinct, etc.?

Well, since this isn't about what you would do, I would say those are irrelevant.

since I am failing to make any connection between your detail free scenario and god....

Thanks for saying that without sarcasm. I finally put it together on #22.
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
It doesn't say what you will do, though. Also, without investigation.

How did you logically come to that conclusion without seeing the facts?

I know humans have a sense of emergency, but beyond that quick justification, what do you think?
Because i can not say if it was a crime. Police can.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
I see it not within your expertise to conclude one way or another. One has to know how to read the evidence.

Without the investigation, I know we'd not conclude either way but I'm sure there is some conclusion one would make of a strong scene like that without needing justification and investigation of the situation. Right?

Think about it. If you walked into a home a child on the ground, blood, and a woman with a knife would you say "well, I'm not going to protect the child because I don't know if the woman would do anything so why intervene"?

So, if the scenario was true, outside human instinct, you wouldn't do anything until, say, the police showed up?

Some people draw conclusions based on what they saw at the moment even though they didn't see the connection between what they see and experience and the event itself.

I guess you can compare this to synchronicity and more-than-coincidental events. We interpret the reason behind (educated guess) that the events we experience close together leads to a correct interpretation of those events. Say, if it rains five times in a row, you had a dream it would rain the next day, and someone says it may rain you'd probably conclude that it may be (without investigating by looking at the weather channel).

I don't know if it's naturally human nature to assume something is true based on what is presented but not witnessed but it's interesting to think of nonetheless.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Because i can not say if it was a crime. Police can.

So the child would just lie there without any thought of the nature of the situation before needing to investigate?

The woman is in the room with the knife and blood so there isn't time to think about it to call the police. Humans usually have a natural reaction but that's a good justification for coming to that conclusion.

There's a stronger scenario in this that people pick it up real easily. I didn't want to use it because it's heavily controversial. It's for context.

Some parents won't take their child to confession to see the priest because another priest molested the child and the church covers it up. While there are facts surrounded about the church and particular priests (women, blood, child), there is no actual evidence that other priests would do the same thing.

Yet, something made them draw the conclusion their child would be at risk without assessing the situation itself (if one could but this case, cannot).

If you see the church and priest like this, what would draw you to that conclusion another priest would harm a child based on his church and other priest's actions?

I used child and mother cause it's less dramatic.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
I'm bored.

One day you walk into a house. You see one woman with a gun and a child on the ground (using a child for a purpose). The child has blood on him and so does the woman.

You saw nothing.

So. Did a murder took place?

If you think it has, what brought you to that conclusion without proper investigation of facts?

How does absence of evidence and witness prove something is true regardless how strong your opinion, belief, and conclusion convinces you otherwise?

You can relate this to god if you like, but the context is the same whether it be supernatural or every day physical reality.

-

Assuming, for a minute, you will NOT investigate but sit still and make conclusions based on raw information (what you see, experience, past experiences, etc) you have at present.
I don't know if you realize, but you left out a very important piece of information that makes anyone making any determinations about "murder" completely moot and useless until it has been established.

You forgot to mention that the child is, indeed, dead in the first place.

All you said is that the child "has blood on him" and is "on the ground." I would need to assess whether or not the child were actually dead to even start wondering about "murder."
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Stronger more contraversial scenario.

Some people wouldn't take their child to confession because of what other priests did and the church's cover up (child/mother/blood). Yet, without evidence that all priest would do the same thing regardless their church, what brought to that conclusion?

Believe me. We can say "well, I wouldn't have evidence so I can't decide either way"

But then ask you to send your child to confession, probably half would say no. What brought you to that conclusion?
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
I don't know if you realize, but you left out a very important piece of information that makes anyone making any determinations about "murder" completely moot and useless until it has been established.

You forgot to mention that the child is, indeed, dead in the first place.

All you said is that the child "has blood on him" and is "on the ground." I would need to assess whether or not the child were actually dead to even start wondering about "murder." Leave it to someone trying to make an analogy about God to forget, overlook, or muck up the details. I tell you.

I did that on purpose. Why would you need the child being dead (or whatever) to draw a conclusion if the child was in danger without needing to investigate it first?

I explained it with god somewhere in one of these posts. I didn't put any details because it isn't about what one would do and no one can investigate, it's just what you think.

Hmm.

If the child was dead, then, without seeing the crime, how would you come to that conclusion?
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
Stronger more contraversial scenario.

Some people wouldn't take their child to confession because of what other priests did and the church's cover up (child/mother/blood). Yet, without evidence that all priest would do the same thing regardless their church, what brought to that conclusion?

Believe me. We can say "well, I wouldn't have evidence so I can't decide either way"

But then ask you to send your child to confession, probably half would say no. What brought you to that conclusion?
Better safe than sorry works pretty well in that scenario. With a few reports popping up in various parts of the world about clergy mishandling children, one should certainly begin to distrust people who say they are "for God." I know I do. And why wouldn't I? Our minds are primed to examine and decipher patterns. Above all, as humans, I believe it is what has kept us surviving and progressing.

The same with the woman holding the gun over the (assumedly?) dead child. A person dead with another holding a weapon nearby is a pretty hard-to-miss pattern. Of course one's mind will immediately go there, but I wouldn't presume to know that it was she who killed the child. Easy enough to just call the authorities and let the experts haggle over the details.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
I did that on purpose. Why would you need the child being dead (or whatever) to draw a conclusion if the child was in danger without needing to investigate it first?

I explained it with god somewhere in one of these posts. I didn't put any details because it isn't about what one would do and no one can investigate, it's just what you think.

Hmm.

If the child was dead, then, without seeing the crime, how would you come to that conclusion?
I wouldn't. But you can be damn sure I would call the authorities and give them that woman's description to the best of my ability. Someone with experience can sort it out. Me? I'd only facilitate as best I could and hope that a close approximation of "the truth" could be established.
 

Samantha Rinne

Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
I'm bored.

One day you walk into a house. You see one woman with a gun and a child on the ground (using a child for a purpose). The child has blood on him and so does the woman.

You saw nothing.

So. Did a murder took place?

If you think it has, what brought you to that conclusion without proper investigation of facts?

How does absence of evidence and witness prove something is true regardless how strong your opinion, belief, and conclusion convinces you otherwise?

You can relate this to god if you like, but the context is the same whether it be supernatural or every day physical reality.

-

Assuming, for a minute, you will NOT investigate but sit still and make conclusions based on raw information (what you see, experience, past experiences, etc) you have at present.


Question. The child is on the ground, you say. Does the child have a gunshot wound? Baby might not even be dead. Or the woman may have been defending her child from an attacker and that blood is his blood. Or against a rat or something. That could be rat blood rather than baby blood.

1. Are there powder burns on the lady's hands? She fired the gun.
2. Does the baby have a bullet wound? It was shot with a gun.
3. Does the ballistics match grooves on the bullet to that gun? She fired that gun at that baby.

If any of these is false, it's possible some third party came in, she fired in self defense, but the other gun shot the baby.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Better safe than sorry works pretty well in that scenario. With a few reports popping up in various parts of the world about clergy mishandling children, one should certainly begin to distrust people who say they are "for God." I know I do. And why wouldn't I? Our minds are primed to examine and decipher patterns. Above all, as humans, I believe it is what has kept us surviving and progressing.

The same with the woman holding the gun over the (assumedly?) dead child. A person dead with another holding a weapon nearby is a pretty hard-to-miss pattern. Of course one's mind will immediately go there, but I wouldn't presume to know that it was she who killed the child. Easy enough to just call the authorities and let the experts haggle over the details.

I read this. Thank you. I guess I should have used the priest-thing but going off on that tangent wasn't an ideal discussion.

Unlike the women and the knife (dead child or not), priest in VA have nothing to do with priest in CA or UK for that matter. Unlike the women, child, and knife, how is it a "safe than sorry" situation if you were to theorize that decision to not take the child to confession?
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
I wouldn't. But you can be damn sure I would call the authorities and give them that woman's description to the best of my ability. Someone with experience can sort it out. Me? I'd only facilitate as best I could and hope that a close approximation of "the truth" could be established.

Take it a step more, why would you call the police if you didn't have evidence and witness the event?

How did you come to the conclusion the child was in danger to call the police (theorizing here)?

We take things for granted, really. We see, hear, even experience something so strong we automatically thing it's true. While we can't investigate everything, I'm sure there are some things so real we think they are true but if we stood back, we wouldn't know.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Question. The child is on the ground, you say. Does the child have a gunshot wound? Baby might not even be dead. Or the woman may have been defending her child from an attacker and that blood is his blood. Or against a rat or something. That could be rat blood rather than baby blood.

1. Are there powder burns on the lady's hands? She fired the gun.
2. Does the baby have a bullet wound? It was shot with a gun.
3. Does the ballistics match grooves on the bullet to that gun? She fired that gun at that baby.

If any of these is false, it's possible some third party came in, she fired in self defense, but the other gun shot the baby.

Good questions. Thanks. I did take out the details because I wanted to know based on what they saw would they mentally conclude the child was in danger. While in life it's nice to investigate, some times we justify the nature of something by what we see and experience even if it may not be true in the long run. Calculated risks, I think they call it.

Let's say the child is dead. No more details than that. Would you think the woman harmed the child? I know there is good feeling that she may have. Even so strong to call the police. Without seeing it, what brought you to that conclusion (if not solely justifying it on human nature)?
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
So the child would just lie there without any thought of the nature of the situation before needing to investigate?

The woman is in the room with the knife and blood so there isn't time to think about it to call the police. Humans usually have a natural reaction but that's a good justification for coming to that conclusion.

There's a stronger scenario in this that people pick it up real easily. I didn't want to use it because it's heavily controversial. It's for context.

Some parents won't take their child to confession to see the priest because another priest molested the child and the church covers it up. While there are facts surrounded about the church and particular priests (women, blood, child), there is no actual evidence that other priests would do the same thing.

Yet, something made them draw the conclusion their child would be at risk without assessing the situation itself (if one could but this case, cannot).

If you see the church and priest like this, what would draw you to that conclusion another priest would harm a child based on his church and other priest's actions?

I used child and mother cause it's less dramatic.
Ah, so the story about the kid on the floor was only a door opener to the situation in catholic church..

Since I am not a catholic, and only know about the situation from media, I will only say that what some priests do is very wrong, and they should be removed as priests.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
Unlike the women and the knife (dead child or not), priest in VA have nothing to do with priest in CA or UK for that matter.
I don't see it this way. The people who make it into these professions must necessarily have some things in common - otherwise why did their life experience/choices/whatever lead them to the same profession? For example, I can be pretty sure they have a belief in God - or that they feel that they do. And being a skeptic by nature, I can also be pretty sure that they have very tenuous reasons for that belief. And so it would follow that they probably don't hold to a very secure sense of reason and evidence.

Unlike the women, child, and knife, how is it a "safe than sorry" situation if you were to theorize that decision to not take the child to confession?
Did you miss where I said "given a few reports?" One priest would be one thing. Perhaps an anomaly, or a one-off incident that might not be repeated. But 5 priests? 10 priests? When does it become something you need to watch out for? I honestly say 2 priests is enough. Visiting a "church" isn't a necessity. If it comes with any risk, it is much, much easier for me to just not attend. I don't need to clearly represent my mistrust... I just don't go. Easy as pie, and literally no effects on my life or livelihood. Others may view it differently, and that is their choice. But if it turned out badly for them, I'd be the first to say "That's what you get for putting your trust in someone who doesn't adhere to reality as it presents itself from the get-go," and not, at all, feel it was "too soon."
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Ah, so the story about the kid on the floor was only a door opener to the situation in catholic church..

Since I am not a catholic, and only know about the situation from media, I will only say that what some priests do is very wrong, and they should be removed as priests.

True. Do you see the connection though? I'm not catholic and don't have a child, but if I were a strong catholic it I wouldn't withhold my child from confession. If I went off the media, I guess with everyone else, safe than sorry. The latter, how did I come to that conclusion since UK priest aren't connected with VA priest? To tell you honestly, I wouldn't know cause that's not in me to accuse people who havent been charged because their boss and peers messed* up.

Some people aren't like me. However, I don't know if you need to be catholic and have a child to hypothesize about the answer.
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
True. Do you see the connection though? I'm not catholic and don't have a child, but if I were a strong catholic it I wouldn't withhold my child from confession. If I went off the media, I guess with everyone else, safe than sorry. The latter, how did I come to that conclusion since UK priest aren't connected with VA priest? To tell you honestly, I wouldn't know cause that's not in me to accusing people who havent been charged.

Some people aren't like me. However, I don't know if you need to be catholic and have a child to hypothesize about the answer.
In my experience hypotheses often do not give a true picture of a situation, So it is kind of no effect of giving an answer to a situation like this.
 
Top